Peter's "confession"

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The major problem with the question “Is the rock Peter or his confession” is that it separates Peter from his faith.

In other words consequently each of us is separate from our faith and our faith is not part of who we are. Kind of silly if you ask me.

Basically it says Peter didn’t believe Jesus was the Christ, his faith did. Peter himself did not believe. Rather large non sequitur.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Nicene said:
The major problem with the question “Is the rock Peter or his confession” is that it separates Peter from his faith.

In other words consequently each of us is separate from our faith and our faith is not part of who we are. Kind of silly if you ask me.

Basically it says Peter didn’t believe Jesus was the Christ, his faith did. Peter himself did not believe. Rather large non sequitur.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
Click to expand...
:amen: :blessyou: Are you and I the only two people around here who “get” this?
 
Mickey said:
I suppose many Church Fathers were assuming this interpretation also?.
Click to expand...
please give reference and quotes, not just i suppose.
Mickey said:
Affriming his love for Jesus Christ after denying Him three times…
Click to expand...
i agree 100%
Mickey said:
It is no coincidence that Jesus asked him three times in conjucntion to the triple denial. .
Click to expand...
I believe it IS a coincidence, however i do not believe it is a restoration of his Apostleship. but an affirmation of it, just as YOU stated.
 
Jason_W said:
because thats who he was talking to. are you suggesting the only reason Jesus calls him Simon is because simon denied Jesus?
Click to expand...
You are the one suggesting the importance of name changes. Perhaps we could discuss the name “Sons of Thunder” for SS John and James on another thread. 😃
 
Mickey said:
You are the one suggesting the importance of name changes. Perhaps we could discuss the name “Sons of Thunder” for SS John and James on another thread. 😃
Click to expand...
yes they were called sons of thunder, but they are always still refered to as John and James.

but i asked a question, are you saying since Jesus calls him simon, son of john, it was because of simons denial?
 
Mickey said:
Why do you think He does this?
Click to expand...
It is a good question. Because John the author of the Gospel tends to use “Peter” even throughout that passage. Here is how the theologian Alcuin of York, early 9th century, exegeted the passage:
*He is called Simon, son of John, John being his natural father. But mystically, Simon is obedience, John grace, a name well befitting him who was so obedient to God’s grace, that he loved our Lord more ardently than any of the others. Such virtue arising from divine gift, not mere human will.*Within the names Simon and John are embodied “obedience” and “grace” which is what Jesus was calling Peter to in that passage.

Refer also back to an earlier part of John’s Gospel, when Jesus uses the same language and prophecied Peter’s name change:
John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

To maintain a position that when Jesus both predicted a name change in Peter (Jn 1:42), made the name change in Peter (Mt 16:18), that the name is actually going to “change back” to Simon is not what Jesus said would happen. Alcuin’s exegesis is thus a fair interpretation.
 
thank you , marco.

i was going to add, if i ever got a response to my question, that the fact Jesus calls Peter , simon, is not because of his denial or because he alledgedly lost his Apostleship. but if we go back to Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. Bar-jona which means son of jonah, or son of john. when Jesus first met simon he said his name will be Peter. and afterwards here we see Jesus call him simon , son of john. the fact that Jesus in John 21:15-17 calls him simon, son of john, in no way implys that Peter lost his Apostleship.It also does not take away from the fact that simon is Peter, or that simon is Rock. not that simon did anything on his own but that God choose simon to reveal Jesus as the Son Of God. then Jesus affirms simons status. Matt 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, * and on this rock * I will build my church, and the powers of death * shall not prevail against it.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Within the names Simon and John are embodied “obedience” and “grace” which is what Jesus was calling Peter to in that passage.
Click to expand...
Amen. This is a triple confession on the part of St Peter after his triple denial. St Peter must profess his love through obedience and grace. I can go with that. 👍
 
Jason_W said:
are you saying since Jesus calls him simon, son of john, it was because of simons denial?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. I am simply pointing out that St Peter’s name change does have this profound impact which sets him above and supreme over all the Apostles. 😉
 
Mickey said:
Not necessarily. I am simply pointing out that St Peter’s name change does have this profound impact which sets him above and supreme over all the Apostles. 😉
Click to expand...
did you mean does or does not?

St.Peter never had a name change. it was simon, whom Jesus calls rock, thus changing his name to Peter when he tells him " you will be called Peter" the fact that Jesus gives the keys to Peter alone,signifies authority. the fact that Jesus says simon, son of john, you are rock and on this rock i will build my church, which is the assembly , the people. the fact that Jesus commands Peter “feed my sheep” “tend my sheep”. leads me to believe that simons name change to Peter “Rock” has a profound impact which causes the Early Church to call him the Prince of the Apostles.

Eusibius book 2, ch14, 6 on history of the Church/ For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others,
 
Mickey said:
Not necessarily. I am simply pointing out that St Peter’s name change does have this profound impact which sets him above and supreme over all the Apostles. 😉
Click to expand...
I’m guessing you think his name change is of no consequence?
 
MarcoPolo said:
I’m guessing you think his name change is of no consequence?
Click to expand...
Wrong. St Peter was/is a gloious Apostle and was the mouthpiece for the Apostles. But his name change did not make him the supreme ruler over the other Apostles. That is all I am saying.
 
Jason_W said:
Eusibius book 2, ch14, 6 on history of the Church/ For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others,
Click to expand...
Speaker! Not supreme ruler over the others.
 
Mickey said:
Speaker! Not supreme ruler over the others.
Click to expand...
i like how you touch on speaker but not not on strongest or greatest. now in a sense the Pope would not call himself supreme ruler over all, but more humbly he calls himself servant of servants.but when it came to judgements on the faith and morals, or the teaching of the Church, Peter was the final authority here on earth. that is why many were silenced after he spoke. and also we see the Gospel of Mark getting Peters authortative approval in Eusibius book 2 ch15 , 2 on Church History

And they say that Peter — when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done — was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias.

the work obtained was the Gospel of Mark which is part of the canon of Scripture.
 
Mickey said:
St Peter was…the mouthpiece for the Apostles.
Click to expand...
The “mouthpiece”…

Incidentally, for other lurkers, Peter’s primal position as head of the apostles, is seen (among other places) when he is named the first, protos (Matthew 10:2), in rank, not just token spokesman which also does violence to Jesus’ prophecy (Jn 1:42) and action in Matthew 16:18.

Even the most anti-Catholic “scholar” recognizes this.

And there are an abundance of Protestant scholars who recognize Peter as the rock, as the literal sense of the text in Matthew 16:18 says.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Incidentally, for other lurkers, Peter’s primal position as head of the apostles, is seen (among other places) when he is named the first, protos (Matthew 10:2), in rank, not just token spokesman which also does violence to Jesus’ prophecy (Jn 1:42) and action in Matthew 16:18.
Click to expand...
Violence is done to nothing–God forbid. St Peter is often the mouthpiece and is considered first amongst **equals. **

We see that St James presides over the first council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). We see in the early Church where the Great Councils fighting heresy, did not elevate the Pope of Rome above all other bishops. St Peter was not a supreme ruler over all other Apostles. You are retroactively forcing the ultramontane post schism Latin view of the papacy onto Scripture and Tradition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top